Parking Ticket dispute - LBC received

[Xparker]

Hi,
I have have an ongoing and escalating dispute with Smart Parking Ltd. Briefly, I parked in one of their managed car parks and bought a parking ticket, but did not enter the vehicle registration number correctly. The first 2 characters of the vehicle reg were missing, but the rest of the characters were correct. I was parked for a period well within the time paid for but was later shocked to receive a PCN because "I did not have a valid ticket for the time parked". Fortunately I still had my printed ticket and so appealed to Smart Parking. They rejected my appeal as did POPLA later on the basis that I was in contravention of their T & Cs for parking because I had entered the registration number incorrectly. Since then I have received a number of letters requesting payment from Smart Parking and later Debt Recovery Plus, all of which I have ignored. However, today I have received a Letter Before Claim from CST LAW. The question is what to do next? I am not inclined to pay the charge as I paid for the parking and did not overstay, which I can prove with my ticket and photos sent by Smart Parking. Which forum should I post this on?

[ULA]

Hi Xparker your post can stay in this forum area and and will tag charitynjw

[charitynjw]

Hi Xparker your post can stay in this forum area and and will tag charitynjw

Hi ULA
Apologies for the delay....I've had to sort out some urgent personal (family) issues which have taken priority.

[charitynjw]

Hi,
I have have an ongoing and escalating dispute with Smart Parking Ltd. Briefly, I parked in one of their managed car parks and bought a parking ticket, but did not enter the vehicle registration number correctly. The first 2 characters of the vehicle reg were missing, but the rest of the characters were correct. I was parked for a period well within the time paid for but was later shocked to receive a PCN because "I did not have a valid ticket for the time parked". Fortunately I still had my printed ticket and so appealed to Smart Parking. They rejected my appeal as did POPLA later on the basis that I was in contravention of their T & Cs for parking because I had entered the registration number incorrectly. Since then I have received a number of letters requesting payment from Smart Parking and later Debt Recovery Plus, all of which I have ignored. However, today I have received a Letter Before Claim from CST LAW. The question is what to do next? I am not inclined to pay the charge as I paid for the parking and did not overstay, which I can prove with my ticket and photos sent by Smart Parking. Which forum should I post this on?

In your appeal, did you ID who was driving at the time of the contravention?

[tesla6518]

Sir, I would question the reliability of the keypad and printer on the parking ticket machine, I would state that you entered the correct registration number and had no reason to check that the correct registration had been printed. Let them prove that the machine was operating correctly at the time. It is not unknown for modern technology to have one off hiccups which is very hard to prove, You have proof that you paid it is not your responsibilty for the correct operation of the machine.

[charitynjw]

Sir, I would question the reliability of the keypad and printer on the parking ticket machine, I would state that you entered the correct registration number and had no reason to check that the correct registration had been printed. Let them prove that the machine was operating correctly at the time. It is not unknown for modern technology to have one off hiccups which is very hard to prove, You have proof that you paid it is not your responsibilty for the correct operation of the machine.

It is usually the party who makes an assertion (eg faulty machine) to prove that assertion.

[tesla6518]

This applies to you. as long as you still have the receipt for payment

Keying error [Scenario 2]

PUBLISHED ON: 12TH MAY 2021
Overview

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice because the motorist parked without entering their registration details via an in-store terminal, when using a customer only car park.

Motorist’s case

The motorist explained that they were a legitimate user of the car park who was shopping in the relevant store. They also said they did enter their vehicle registration details into the terminal.

Evidence

The motorist provided evidence of purchases to demonstrate they were a customer of the store.

The operator provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera photographs showing the motorist’s car entering and exiting the car park.

The operator provided copies of the signs at the car park confirming a requirement for customers to enter a full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal to quality for 1 ½ hours of free parking.

And they provided the results of a search for the motorist’s vehicle registration details on a system that records all registrations entered on the day. The list of registration numbers did not include the appellant’s car.

Analysis

Neither party disputes that the motorist parked on the day in question. The appeal is based around the motorist’s claim that they were a legitimate customer and they did enter their registration into the on-site terminal.

There was no log of the motorist’s registration on a search of the operator’s systems. But the motorist has provided receipts showing they were a legitimate car park user who made purchases in store. One conclusion that might be drawn from this evidence is that the motorist may have keyed their registration incorrectly at the terminal.

Section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice covers the steps a parking operator should take when a keying error occurs. If there has been a minor keying error, for example one digit entered incorrectly, the parking operator is expected to have identified this before issuing a parking charge notice. If they failed to do this, they are expected to cancel the parking charge notice when the motorist appeals.

In situations where a major keying error has occurred, for example the motorist entered an entirely different registration, the parking operator is not expected to have identified this before issuing a parking charge notice. But it is expected that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event, that the motorist attempted to enter their vehicle registration mark, or they were a legitimate user of the car park (e.g. a customer).

The Code of Practice recognises that an operator will have incurred charges in issuing a parking charge notice if a motorist has made a major keying error, and permits that they can they seek to recover these by way of applying a modest charge of no more that £20 to the motorist.

In this instance, the motorist had provided evidence of their store receipt to the operator to show they were a customer and therefore a legitimate user of the car park. The parking operator evidence showed that they searched for the motorist’s vehicle registration but did not show that any attempt to identify if there had been a keying error.

As the motorist demonstrated they were a legitimate user of the car park who claimed to have interacted with the keypad, we would have expected the operator to establish whether this was a minor keying error, in which case they should have cancelled the parking charge; or a major keying error, in which case they should have reduced the amount to a maximum of £20. The operator did neither.

Outcome

POPLA allowed the appeal and required the parking operator to cancel the parking charge notice because it was evident that the parking operator had failed to follow the keying error expectations in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

[charitynjw]

This applies to you. as long as you still have the receipt for payment

Keying error [Scenario 2]

PUBLISHED ON: 12TH MAY 2021
Overview

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice because the motorist parked without entering their registration details via an in-store terminal, when using a customer only car park.

Motorist’s case

The motorist explained that they were a legitimate user of the car park who was shopping in the relevant store. They also said they did enter their vehicle registration details into the terminal.

Evidence

The motorist provided evidence of purchases to demonstrate they were a customer of the store.

The operator provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera photographs showing the motorist’s car entering and exiting the car park.

The operator provided copies of the signs at the car park confirming a requirement for customers to enter a full and correct vehicle registration into the terminal to quality for 1 ½ hours of free parking.

And they provided the results of a search for the motorist’s vehicle registration details on a system that records all registrations entered on the day. The list of registration numbers did not include the appellant’s car.

Analysis

Neither party disputes that the motorist parked on the day in question. The appeal is based around the motorist’s claim that they were a legitimate customer and they did enter their registration into the on-site terminal.

There was no log of the motorist’s registration on a search of the operator’s systems. But the motorist has provided receipts showing they were a legitimate car park user who made purchases in store. One conclusion that might be drawn from this evidence is that the motorist may have keyed their registration incorrectly at the terminal.

Section 17 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice covers the steps a parking operator should take when a keying error occurs. If there has been a minor keying error, for example one digit entered incorrectly, the parking operator is expected to have identified this before issuing a parking charge notice. If they failed to do this, they are expected to cancel the parking charge notice when the motorist appeals.

In situations where a major keying error has occurred, for example the motorist entered an entirely different registration, the parking operator is not expected to have identified this before issuing a parking charge notice. But it is expected that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event, that the motorist attempted to enter their vehicle registration mark, or they were a legitimate user of the car park (e.g. a customer).

The Code of Practice recognises that an operator will have incurred charges in issuing a parking charge notice if a motorist has made a major keying error, and permits that they can they seek to recover these by way of applying a modest charge of no more that £20 to the motorist.

In this instance, the motorist had provided evidence of their store receipt to the operator to show they were a customer and therefore a legitimate user of the car park. The parking operator evidence showed that they searched for the motorist’s vehicle registration but did not show that any attempt to identify if there had been a keying error.

As the motorist demonstrated they were a legitimate user of the car park who claimed to have interacted with the keypad, we would have expected the operator to establish whether this was a minor keying error, in which case they should have cancelled the parking charge; or a major keying error, in which case they should have reduced the amount to a maximum of £20. The operator did neither.

Outcome

POPLA allowed the appeal and required the parking operator to cancel the parking charge notice because it was evident that the parking operator had failed to follow the keying error expectations in the British Parking Association Code of Practice.

Presumably this is a POPLA adjudicator's decision on an appeal. (You haven't provided a link/citation to verify).
Different POPLA adjudicators can come to different decisions on (largely) the same kind of scenarios.
POPLA decisions do not have to be accepted by the appellant, though it is likely that they would be if in the appellant's favour.
Tbh,I doubt whether a POPLA decsion by itself would carry much weight in a proper court of law.
I'm not suggesting that the adjudicator's decion would be ignored, but imho they are normally decided on a fairly narrow band of facts & law (eg, mitigating circumstances are rarely taken into consideration).

[tesla6518]

Please note that this was copied from the POPLA website, However it was not intended to show the adjudicators decision, but to highlight the process to be used regarding keying error's, as stated in the BPA code of practice.